Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Large KBAs (plural) plus intact and threatened forest landscapes
Evidence B:The proposed location is highly significant because this location is home for some endemic and endangered species such as Pittas, Malaysian Tapirs, gibbons, Asian elephants, clouded leopard and tigers.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Higher than 150 t/ha over most of the site area
Evidence B:There is no information on carbon stock in the proposal, but irrecoverable carbon spatial indicated that the region covering with 50 - 100 t/ha.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Continued management in place, but with legal uncertainty and with religious conversion and war undermining some cultural practices linked to governance. De facto, but not de jure, control over some of the territories, no control over some areas.
Evidence B:The IPLC maintains the location with some limitations due to some threats come from extractive industries such as mining and palm oil.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Well explained.
Evidence B:The applicant describes the importance of the proposed location for cultural activities of Karen communities. One of the main characteristics of the Karen community is the strong reliance on and relationship with medical roots and herbs from the forest.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Infrastructure, dams, agribusiness, climate change and coastal change, over-fishing, but also conservation areas with exclusion possible.
Evidence B:the proposed location face serious threats from agribusiness expansion, mining concession, infrastructure projects, and protected areas controlled by the government
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Myanmar law recognises only limited rights.
Evidence B:The government designated some policies and planning for promoting IPLC-led conservation but it is lack of information about the implementation of such policies.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: In limited places and under limited conditions (Salween Peace Park is a major exception), but there is some support. may be able to capitalise on it.
Evidence B:The government implements some support for IPLC-led conservation such as Forest Master Plan and UNFCCC Targets.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Only a few very are beyond pilot stage, but they do exist.
Evidence B:The applicant indicates some relevant IPLC-led conservations programs to show how conservation initiatives have been successful in protecting the landscape. For instance, Kamoethway, Paw Klo, and Htee Moe Phwar.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The applicant has been implementing some relevant programs with the proposed activities in the EoI. These programs are supported by a variety of donors such as RFN, WWF, SIDA, and SwedBio
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Very well aligned, but perhaps smaller in scope than the ambition of the ICI
Evidence B:The proposal exceptionally aligned with the ICI’s objective to enhance IPLC efforts to steward the land and natural resource to deliver global environmental benefits.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Excellent
Evidence B:The proposed activities in this EoI are well designed with detailed targets and outcomes. These activities can be grouped in conservation planning and ICCA demarcation, Livelihood activities, landscape coordination activities, biodiversity, and registration, finalisation, and advocacy.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Threats are considerable, and difficult / entrenched. Very well designed project. Unclear if they are realistic, but could be under good condition.
Evidence B:the proposed activities are designed to empowering IPLC’s capacity as well as strengthening the legal status of IPLC-led conservation. This strategy is relevant to tackle the main threats from extractive industries in this area.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Total cost of the project is unclear, but would be at the lower end of the range of investment envisaged.
Evidence B:Activities and results exceptionally well aligned with range of investment and it seems that the target of these activities also too ambitious.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Large projects named, no detail on funding or co-funding size or scope. Concrete (yes) but significant (not demonstrated)
Evidence B:There is some ongoing project that is relevant to support this activity, but the applicant does not explain in detail how much budget can be mobilized to support this program.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The targeted area to be improved through this project is 637.929 hectares.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Livelihood, strengthened governance and cultural indicators are all present.
Evidence B:The applicant clearly formulated cultural and livelihood results contributing to the project objectives.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Unclear long-term funding,
Evidence B:This project is intended for a robust vision for long-term sustainability by addressing policy and institutional reform to support IPLC-led conservation
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Directly relevant to cited targets. Political will on the side of the government still unclear though.
Evidence B:The proposed project is in line with 2015-2020 Myanmar National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan and NDC.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Women’s roles in management, conservation, sustainable use all clear
Evidence B:The proposed project will implement to ensure 40% of women representation and local knowledge documentation will unravel women’s rich biological knowledge.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: If demonstrated successfully here could be replicated within the country
Evidence B:This proposed project is really derived from IPLC grassroots level to provide a good case for regional and global ICCA’s network.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: KESAN and other named lead partners are indigenous led
Evidence B:This proposal composes IPLC led approach and the applicant submit the EoI on behalf of some IPLC groups.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Long-term and site-based leadership.
Evidence B:The applicant has been partnering with several NGOs and IPCL group in implementing similar projects in the past.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Yes, and confirmed with ICCA support letter, plus wide networks within Myanmar
Evidence B:The applicant will work with some partner organizations to implement the program with IPLC.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Good, additional partners well chosen.
Evidence B:The applicant has capacity to implement the project, but it has not worked for any project funded by GEF in the past.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Appears strong. no idea what the largest project is previously, but above 100k
Evidence B:The applicant has a strong management capacity to maintain a big project. Annual budget is USD 1.2 million with support of more than 10 donor agencies.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Only through review of application of safeguards to other projects (SECU complaint), but this is more than nothing.
Evidence B:KESAN in a member of CAT, which is currently involved in SECU review of the “Ridge to Reef” project in the region